Been
There, Done That
Well now, hasn’t this whole lobster plan situation turned
into a fine kettle of lobsters? The recent Massachusetts
decision to put all its lobster area plans on hold has, to say the
least, caused an earthquake throughout the range of lobster
nation. The Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission has passed its Addendum III to
the lobster plan and under the rules in the Atlantic Coastal Act,
all states are required to comply. So, what is Massachusetts’
problem?
The
Division is faced with what it considers a very complicated
situation because it is at the junction of four different management
areas. Areas 1,2,3 and
Outer Cape all have fishermen who land in Massachusetts. Each of those areas have
different plans.
Confusion, maybe, but not undoable. Actually, they’re probably
just as workable as some of the other fishery regulations now in
place for other state fishery management programs. One could look at the
current regulations for striped bass, groundfish, scup, sea bass and
the list goes on.
Suffice to say those rules are just as
complicated.
As we have mentioned before, the Commonwealth is also at
the junction of all three lobster stock areas, the Gulf of Maine,
Georges Bank and Southern New England and all those stock areas have
been assessed at different levels of “overfished” or where
“overfishing” is occurring.
The management goal for each area, however, is the same, that
“infamous” 10% number again.
The Area teams of fishermen were told to design plans to
reach that goal. They
did but naturally, the plans were different because one plan just
wouldn’t work for everyone.
At the public hearings there were some comments heard in
support of having the same rules for everyone. Sounds good, doesn’t
it? The problem here
was that most of those who voiced that opinion wanted their plan for everyone and
not the other guys plan for them. They also may not have
understood that for all areas to reach their goals, some needed to
do more then others.
Okay, let’s talk but for these teams, they’ve Been There,
Done That. Maybe the
state can forget the 4.3% or 6. Something or 8 point whatever
biological starting points and that 10% goal figure and formulate a
“we all feel the same” plan.
Maybe the technical team can be asked to leave the
room.
One must remember, however, that with the gauge increase
concept, Area 2 bought out of their problem, the Outer Cape and Area
3 needed even more so they planned to reduce traps. In Area 1, the points to be gained with
a gauge size increase wasn’t even worth discussing. Then there was
the marketing side nightmare that the Boston distribution system
would face if the whole state went up on the minimum size and
dealers couldn’t bring in Maine or Canadian smaller sizes in order
to compete in the world lobster marketplace. When discussing trap
reduction ideas, one will inevitably end up with much of the same
debates that several area fishermen teams have already agonized
through. Their trap
reduction proposals have already sparked dissension and their
administrative elements have been part of the complications worrying
the state agency. If
such a system is too complicated to implement for an area as small
as the Outer Cape, how would it be less confusing if the whole state
had a similar plan?
These are the complications related to Massachusetts’
decision to take no action and perhaps a good reason to have those
meetings and some serious talks between the Division of Marine
Fisheries and the Lobster Conservation Management Teams. The LCMTs have worked hard
and maybe they can explain how long they have been there and have
been doing that already.
Failure to implement some plan has other repercussions as
well. It raises the
issue of failing to meet a reproduction goal set forth in a major
management plan. It
raises a real threat of non-compliance action from the ASMFC. It also raises the spectra
of lawsuits by conservation groups similar to the groundfish
case.
Getting the state and its fishermen past the wrath of all
the other states at the ASMFC management table will be a major
task. Other fishermen
from the other states will be watching what will happen here. Participants in other
fishery management plans from all the states will also be watching
what happens to a lobster plan designed by fishermen and how the
State of Massachusetts’
ultimately reacts to those types of
plans.
Didn’t Massachusetts do this before, in 1776 but in this
case, are we firing at ourselves?
Bill Adler
Executive Director
05/02
| 
